Supreme Court Decision Marks Death of NRA, Frees Gun Owners to Vote Democrat

2010 June 28
by Matt Deaton

Gun control groups like the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence argued for years that the notoriously ambiguous 2nd Amendment only applied to the National Guard, leaving civilian gun owners at the mercy of state and local law. While the National Rifle Association has favored an interpretation that encompasses private citizens, they used the contested status of the Amendment to garner opposition to a slew of seemingly reasonable firearms policies, such as a national firearms owner registry, ballistics registration, and ammunition stamping – all of which could prevent violent crime and prosecute offenders – on grounds that any concession to gun control advocates would quickly lead to full firearms confiscation. If we let the state register our shotguns today, they argued, full confiscation is sure to follow tomorrow.


Today’s Supreme Court Decision renders that slippery slope argument null and void. Two summers ago the Court finally took a stand on the Second Amendment, ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller that it protects private civilians’ right to own firearms in their homes for personal protection. Today’s McDonald v. Chicago ruling extends Heller beyond federal law, to state and local law. The rulings leave room for states to impose “reasonable restrictions,” the specifics of which are left for lower courts to decide. But the message is clear – universal firearms confiscation is a legal impossibility in the United States.

The implications for the NRA are devastating. While the 2nd Amendment was contested, firearms owners who bought into the slippery slope argument (fueled by statements like the one on the cover of the NRA’s political magazine above) had a self-interested reason to pay their membership dues and vote as the NRA dictated – which almost always meant Republican. But with the constitutional right of private citizens to keep and bear arms firmly and clearly protected, gun enthusiasts are free to set aside gun rights as a wedge issue, to earnestly reflect on the merits of particular gun policies, and to seriously consider Democrats for public office.

The NRA could renounce its former positions in light of the rulings, and reinvent itself — evenhandedly crafting policy solutions that balance access to effective personal protection with public safety. With a community of experts and the backing of  4.3 million members, who’s in a better position? Doing so might even regain the allegiance of reasonable firearms owners like myself. However, I’m not holding my breath, having long suspected that the NRA is a puppet of the firearms industry, not representing the true interests of regular gun owners, let alone the public at large. But I gladly welcome the opportunity to be proven wrong.

The NRA’s one practical hope for survival lies in the issue of concealed carry permits, which the Supreme Court rulings do not explicitly protect. Democrats and Republicans disagree over whether states should issue permits at all, to whom, and according to what restrictions, which may continue to tether some firearms enthusiasts to the GOP. However, even though Obama voiced opposition to concealed carry permits during his campaign, he has done very little (if anything) to restrict concealed carry, or firearms in general, calling the NRA’s pre-election bluff that he would be the most anti-gun president in US history. Maybe, just maybe, Obama took my open letter to heart :)

from → Uncategorized

6 Comments leave one →
2010 June 28
Karl L. Hughes permalink

I’ve always been on the fence when it comes to gun-control. On one side, I grew up in the city limits of Memphis – a city with one of the highest violent crime rates in the country – and I have never had an experience where I thought having a gun with me would really make me safer. Perhaps make me “feel” safer, but in reality I would rather lose my wallet and car than try to fight off someone who was trying to rob me in a gun-fight.

On the other side of the issue, I think that it’s important that the citizens of this country or any other country always have the right and ability to defend themselves from invading (or domestic) threats. I think back to the American Revolution and the countless other wars that citizens fought against their own governments because they were ignored or mistreated badly enough. Although I think we are far from that point in our nation’s history, I think it’s important that citizens retain the ability to change their government when necessary, and sometimes guns are the only way to do it.

2010 June 28
Matt Deaton permalink

Agreed, Karl (on your second point). “So we can fight back should the government become tyrannical” is a reason in favor of firearms ownership rarely cited in public, but often cited in private. Some have argued that it however justifies too much — privately owned tanks and F-18s, perhaps. But if the Iraqi insurgency can effectively harass the most powerful army in the world with AK-47s and homemade bombs, and even win small battles, Americans could probably hold their own if need be too.

That’s actually the best (and maybe only) argument in favor of civilian ownership of assault rifles, since handguns and shotguns satisfy most personal defense needs.

On your first point, in most cases it is indeed better to hand over your wallet or car or whatever than inject a firearm into an already volatile situation. Sometimes though, when bad guys aren’t content to take your stuff, but want to seriously hurt, rape, or kill you, guns can be useful. In case you’re interested, you’re invited to the 5th annual philosophy shoot at my mother’s farm in Vonore — come learn how actually be safer with a gun, not just feel safer :) Thanks for posting!

2010 July 7
Kevin permalink

Very informative…now if only CA would relax some of its gun restrictions.
I used to be a member of the NRA. I particularly favored their educational endeavors when it came to safely handling firearms for fun or protection. I thought they did a good service in presenting more accurate information about gun related incidents of crime (the good and the bad, so to speak). However, I was often frustrated at their lack of support of reasonable gun restrictions. Of course, I expect many of us could debate what is considered “reasonable.” I guess what I found frustrating is their seeming lack of even wanting to enter into the conversation or debate. I’m sure in some areas they were doing this, however it was often obscure at the grassroots level.

2010 July 12
Matt Deaton permalink

Hey, Kev! All I hear about CA gun laws are rumors — self-defense guys on the web complaining about what they view as draconian 10-round magazine limits and categorical assault weapons bans. I wonder if the SC would consider either a “reasonable” restriction…

I too was once a member. But I grew tired of their political propaganda (“I’m a member, already–stop with the brainwashing!”), and as you mentioned–their seeming unwillingness to even discuss reasonable restrictions. But be cheerful–their old slippery slope argument has lost its bite.

What I didn’t say above is that maybe they’re to thank for the SC decision–probably influenced several key Justice appointments, even if just indirectly. I’m appreciative of that, but their unwillingness to balance public safety with private security is reason enough to call them out. With the 2nd Amendment largely settled, maybe they’ll reform. Maybe.

2011 February 22
Matt Powell permalink

I know i’m late into this subject, but still felt that even though the light on this particular case has passed; gun rights will forever be an issue. I would like to first state that i too completely agree with what karl had to say about our needing weapons to be able to have control over our country. I also read your open letter and agreed with many of the points you made Matt. As far as a carry/conceal permit, I believe that there is always a blurred line there for handguns. I don’t think i need to have a firearm on me everytime I go to Wal-Mart, but in my opinion i should be able to carry one if i’m going four-wheeling or camping. Back to the issue at hand; I must admit that I was hearing rumors during the election time, and after, of Obama wanting to make a magazine cap of no more than ten(i believe is what it was). This was something that I was rather upset with, but also understood the reasoning. On one side of the coin you have the overpowered civilian who can pose a threat and problem to other civilians and law enforcement, and on the other you have a person who can use a 30 round rifle magazine for compedative shooting(and even as stated before; to help take back control of government). As I said; it will always be a grey line, with extremists on both sides and the free thinker in the middle. Here is a Piece of knowledge that makes me proud of our right to bear arms- “Japan would never invade the United States. We would find a rifle behind every blade of grass.” Isoroku Yamamoto

2011 March 10
Matt Deaton permalink

Hey Powell!! Thanks so much for visiting and posting.

Indeed, the magazine cap question is a tough one. I have mags that are over 10 rounds, and I like the security they provide. However, I’ll concede that the vast majority of defensive situations should be resolvable with 10 shots. Someone who knows what they’re doing should be able to disable at least 3 assailants with 10 shots, and it’s very rare that more than that many will gang up on a person. That, plus the fact that wackos can in fact do more damage when they don’t have to reload as often, pushes me toward supporting the cap.

Based on self-interest, I like my 30 and 15 round mags. They give me a competitive advantage when I go to the range for IDPA and 3-gun shoots, and more is better if you ever need a gun in a real situation. But in the wrong hands they really do pose an undue threat to public safety. So since we all should be able to defend ourselves just fine with ten shots, reluctantly, I’ll go on record here and say I support a 10-shot cap. See what you made me do! :-)

Leave A Comment

Note: You can use basic XHTML in your comments. Your email address will never be published.

Subscribe to this comment feed via RSS

CAPTCHA Image
*